The American journal of sports medicine · 2005
Clinical comparison of the Tutoplast allograft and autologous patellar tendon (bone-patellar tendon-bone) for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: 2- and 6-year results.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gorschewsky Ottmar, Klakow Andreas, Riechert Kathrin, Pitzl Martin, Becker Roland
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of an allograft as a suitable transplant is still open to debate, in terms of donor morbidity, implantation reaction, and long-term results, as well as the risk of disease transmission.
HYPOTHESIS: The clinical results 2 and 6 years after implantation of a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft (Tutoplast) and bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft show no significant difference in relation to stability, function, and rate of rupture.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHOD: Between 1995 and 1998, 268 patients with anterior cruciate ligament ruptures were surgically treated: 132 patients received a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft implantation and 136 patients a bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. The results were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee, Noyes, and Lysholm scores.
RESULTS: There were 201 patients assessable after 2 years and 186 patients after 6 years. Ruptures of the implants in the allograft group occurred in 20 patients (20.6%) within 2 years and in 38 patients (44.7%) after 6 years. In the autograft group, transplants ruptured in 5 patients (4.8%) after 2 years and in 6 patients (5.9%) after 6 years.
CONCLUSION: Based on the data, it would appear that the regular use of bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts, particularly for physically active patients, is unsuitable.
HYPOTHESIS: The clinical results 2 and 6 years after implantation of a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft (Tutoplast) and bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft show no significant difference in relation to stability, function, and rate of rupture.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHOD: Between 1995 and 1998, 268 patients with anterior cruciate ligament ruptures were surgically treated: 132 patients received a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft implantation and 136 patients a bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. The results were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee, Noyes, and Lysholm scores.
RESULTS: There were 201 patients assessable after 2 years and 186 patients after 6 years. Ruptures of the implants in the allograft group occurred in 20 patients (20.6%) within 2 years and in 38 patients (44.7%) after 6 years. In the autograft group, transplants ruptured in 5 patients (4.8%) after 2 years and in 6 patients (5.9%) after 6 years.
CONCLUSION: Based on the data, it would appear that the regular use of bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts, particularly for physically active patients, is unsuitable.